INDRAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These instant ball applications have been filed under Sec. 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 573/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu, Distric Jhunjhunu for the offence punishable under Sec. 143, 307, 420 and 406 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Ss. 34, 307, 302, 420, 406, 120B and 448 of IPC.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that during investigation, petitioners were not found involved in any offence and therefore, negative final report was submitted qua the petitioners in the Court concerned. Counsel submits that in exercise of powers under Sec. 193 of Cr.P.C. petitioners were summoned as additional accused through warrant of arrest. Counsel contends that the order taking cognizance was assailed by the petitioners by way of fiiling revison petition No. 834/2023 before this Court. Vide order dtd. 20/12/2024, the revision petition was disposed of and the order taking cognizance was affirmed but warrant of arrest was converted into summons for securing presence of the petitioners. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court in revision petition, the petitioners appeared before the Court concered and moved bail application, however, their bail application were dismissed by the learned Trial Court. Shri Garg further submits that while arguing the bail applications of the petitioners, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 2/12/2015 in D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 382/2014 titled as 'Manoha Lal Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan' wherein it has been observed that if a person is summoned through bailable warrant or summons then, he must be enlarged on bail. But learned Trial Court totally ignored the directions issued by Hon'ble Divison Bench in the case of Manohar Lal Saini (supra) and rejected the bail application of the petitioners. Lastly, he argues that the petitioners are in custody and trial will take long time in its conclusion.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant opposes the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.